When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.Heres how it works.
it’s possible for you to also find each at a discounted price without too much hunting.
For instance, theBip 5 is $74 on Amazonright now and the Matrix is$44 via Walmart.
The Armitron has a 1.78-inch AMOLED screen thats smaller but brighter than the Amazfits 1.91-inch LCD display.
Another notable difference involves the Bips screen, which is slightly curved compared to the completely flat Matrix display.
Still, the two devices are comparable in size, weight and overall wearability.
And at a glance, either could pass for anApple Watch SE.
Battery life is also solid on either model.
Plus, you get useful wellness tools like heart rate monitoring and blood oxygen saturation readings.
So, I strapped one to either wrist and set off on a 5,000-step excursion.
Read on for the results.
Once complete, I compare the results.
For this test, I also recorded my walk using theStrava appon my phone.
To ensure an accurate manual count, I used an old-school tally counter to record every 100 steps taken.
This is an impressive result for any fitness tracker, not just budget-oriented ones.
By comparison, Strava calculated my total at 5,148 steps.
Distance data between the two smartwatches lines up nicely, too.
Sadly, neither watch provided a total elevation gain measure post-workout.
I kept a pretty leisurely pace during this walk, and both devices reflect that.
Strava, meanwhile, continues to calculate my pace as faster than most smartwatches.
Heart rate data between the two watches is quite different.
Worse, no maximum heart rate metric is given.
Finally, the Bip 5 calculated more calories burned than the Matrix.
On the flip side, the Armitron used virtually no battery over the course of my 51-minute jaunt.
Until then, don’t forget to get your steps in.
More from Tom’s Guide
